The Laws of Language
2 July 2007
Haus Edelweiss
Heiligenkreuz, Austria
In today’s lesson I stressed that three topics–the genres of Revelation, the use of the Old Testament, and John’s use of symbolism–are interconnected. You cannot break off one from the other two. In discussing the hermeneutical principle that you must interpret Scripture in light of the laws of language, I emphasized many points, but they responded very enthusiastically to four:
First, John uses two words in Rev. 1:1 (translated in the NIV as “to show” and, in an unfortunate translation “to make known” which is better translated “to make known in symbols”). I showed them how both words are used in the writings of John as well as the book of Daniel (see 2:45) to emphasize the nature of language that John is going to be using: He clearly communicates from the outset that symbolic language is the dominant language found in the book.
Second, symbols do not mean that something is less true, but rather they enrich the communication of the truths that John is passing on to us from God.
Third, they concluded that to ask whether or not a person interpreted Revelation “literally” is a rather silly question. The term “literal” they said was to interpret a passage in light of the author’s original intended meaning and that meaning could be expressed in symbolic and non-symbolic language. As I write in my book, the Bible student must interpret a passage naturally in light of the genre of the book.
Fourth, a common guideline is that the Bible student interprets something “literally” unless the context demands otherwise. In light of Rev. 1:1 and the nature of the genres of the book, we should say that when studying Revelation we should interpret a passage symbolically–numbers, colors, animals, pieces of furniture, etc.–symbolically unless the context demands otherwise.
Related posts: